2019 (12) TMI 1440 - AAR - GST

Scope of Advance Ruling application - rate of tax on outdoor catering service - applicant contends that vide notification No. 20/2019-Central Tax (Rate), dated 30th September, 2019 the Government has reduced tax on outdoor catering to 5% - HELD THAT - The applicant has preferred the application for seeking advance ruling on various issues but it has failed to frame any question. Instead of posing any question before the authority, the applicant has given a description of the activities undertaken by it. The applicant was also given personal hearing on 17.12.2019 wherein Advocate, Sh. Manoj Mittal and C.A, Bhuvan Mittal appeared before the Authority, but even then there was lack of clarity on the framing of question(s) for Advance Ruling. Accordingly, the application was not admitted. The instant application for advance ruling is rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act.

Summary

Issues: Lack of clarity in framing questions for advance ruling

Issue 1: Lack of clarity in framing questions for advance ruling

Analysis: The applicant, M/s Jewel Classic Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Karnal (NCR), sought an advance ruling on various issues related to GST but failed to frame any specific questions. Despite a personal hearing where the applicant's representatives, including an advocate and a chartered accountant, appeared before the Authority, there was still ambiguity in the formulation of questions for the advance ruling. As a result, the application was not admitted as it did not meet the requirement of posing clear questions for consideration under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act.

Ruling: The application for advance ruling was rejected due to the lack of clarity in framing questions for consideration under the relevant provisions of the CGST/HGST Act.

---